2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S M ATTIQUE SHAH, J.

Through instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, petitioner Yousaf Ali has prayed for the following relief:- "that the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and the petitioner may kindly be declared as successful candidate for the post of Manager Communication and Media Management in the Water and Sanitation Services Peshawar (WSSP) and the selection of respondent No.3 may kindly be declared as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and of no legal effect."

2. In essence, petitioner had applied for the post of "Manager Communication and Media Management" in pursuant to the advertisement floated by respondent No.2 in the daily newspaper as well as on website of respondents. Initially, petitioner was not called for Interview by respondents; however, after getting temporary injunction from the learned Civil Court below, he was called for test interview; but at conclusion of interview, he was not selected for the ibid post; rather respondent No.3 was declared suitable candidate for the said post. Aggrieved from the same, petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ petition.

3. The respondents were put on notice; who submitted their parawise comments; denying therein the stance of petitioner; by stating that petitioner was at Serial No.4 of the final merit list; while respondent No.3 was at Serial No.1 of the ibid list; therefore, petitioner could not be appointed on the said post.

4. Arguments heard; record perused.

5. The available record reveals that respondent No.2 invited applications for the post of "Manager Communication and Media Management" from suitable candidates through advertisement published in daily newspaper, and; after conclusion of recruiting process, respondent No.3 was declared successful for the said post; who obtained 73 marks being top of Final Merit List available on file; whereas petitioner had secured 70 marks standing at Serial No.4 of the ibid merit list. Two other individuals had also secured more marks than the petitioner; but neither those persons have challenged the impugned appointment order nor they were made party to the instant petition by petitioner; being necessary parties; having higher position in the final merit list than the petitioner. The grievance of petitioner is that he was awarded lesser marks in the interview in order to accommodate other candidate; however, as per comments of respondents available on file, petitioner was having 10 years experience in the relevant field; therefore, he was awarded experience marks for the same; whereas the interview marks are given to the candidates in light of their performance in the interview; therefore, no law or any right of petitioner has been violated by respondents. The allegation levelled by petitioner; is general and vague qua mala fide against respondents, which is not sufficient for intervening in the selection process; as nothing in black and white is available on file; which could suggest that lesser marks were awarded to the petitioner; with mala fide intention and ulterior motive in order to accommodate the respondent No.3. Besides, authority of Selection Committee/ appointing authority could not be challenged and questioned because of the fact that selection committee was the best Judge at the given time to form an opinion and take decision after judging the ability of candidates. Proper criteria was laid down for grant of marks in the interview by the interviewing authorities; therefore, this Court cannot enter into the domain of appointing authority or selection to judge the potential of a candidate nor can substitute its own opinion with that of interview committee particularly, when no mala fide on behalf of respondents is apparent. Moreover, the matter pertains to factual controversy; which could not be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Besides, once a person was appointed after fulfilling all the codal formalities and his appointment letter was issued, a vested right was created in his favour; which cannot be taken away/ withdrawn on mere assumption, supposition etc. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by respondents by issuing the impugned appointment order; which needs no interference by this Court; hence instant writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. SA/31/P Petition dismisse